recent mugging incidents in park slope

eggcream:

the first part of what i said was in answer to your question, but more directed at benzapp, if that makes sense.

yes, there was no discussion of the death penalty.

the discussion of guns in the home directly relates to benzapp's assertion that a gun-toting populace would deter crime. the data shows that gun owners are more likely to hurt themselves or their loved ones than an intruder. people who carry guns on the street would have to bring them home, and when they do, bad things happen. to my knowledge, there is no study that examines the results of people being strapped on the street; but if things don't work out well for people that have guns in their home, it's reasonable to say that having them carry guns around on their person would not help either.

friendlypitbull wrote:
Trust me .

With a handle like yours, I'll trust that you know what you are talking about!

friendlypitbull wrote: [quote=stacey]

HUH??? She did not mention any names and it is the victim not the ADA talking on the blogs. There is no gag order in effect. When this goes to trial the judge asks the potential jurors "do you have any personal knowledge of this case". I am sure they can find enough jurors who did not read this to sit on that jury. Also this type of posting does not constitute a written statement - a written statement is dated and signed with the person's "real" name and usually witnessed and/or notarized.

No it doesn't have to be signed, notarized or dated (although I am sure her email has a date)when your under oath and testifying - every statement (especially inconsistent ones) can be used to cross-examine you.

The "problem" with the statement is the potential it has to muck up the hearings/trial. The women describes the "show-up" identification - she recalls the guy was in handcuffs - when she saw him (while that is ok given the circumstances, the defense will have some fun with that) - does the Officer recall it the same way? Did the cop tell him that the guy was "obviously running and winded" prior to the identification (I hope not). Additionally she says she doesn't think she can identify the 2nd guy; well what happens if they put him in a lineup and she CAN id? Additionally the ADA gave her information regarding the 1st defendant's statements that again may be admissible in an attempt to suppress any id of any 2nd defendant.

Trust me the ADA should want to know that his/her victim is writing detailed accounts of the crime and subsequent identifications - the last place a good prosecutor would want to find out about it, is when the witness is testifying.

First to the OP I am sorry you had to go through this and am glad that you are ok.

You make a very good point about the show up and I do understand your argument. But my questions would be - wouldn't a post on a neighborhood blog - doing what neighbors do, which is gossip and inform others - be considered hearsay? I would think that the defense attorney would need a subpoena to investigate the email account and have to prove that it was in fact the victim who posted this? Would the judge allow such a subpoena against a victim for a few minor inconsistencies especially when the other person gave up his partner? And I assume that there is a discovery stage for criminal cases in which both sides have to hand over any evidence they plan on using in a trial which would limit the element of surprise? If the ADA is not aware of these statements, wouldn"t it also be up to the defense attorney to investigate these so called statements?

Again you make very good points and I do find this interesting especially now in the wake of the internet. I just have a casual knowledge of the workings of law and would really like to hear from any criminal attorneys on this aspect.

benzapp wrote: Vote Republican so we can finally carry guns without bribing public officials or being well connected.

If the Republican party put forward a candidate that wasn't a bible-thumping retard then they might get my vote. Ron Paul seems like a decent chap, but I'm not sure about him.

benzapp wrote: It is a supreme hypocrisy that the only people who get carry permits besides a few security guards are diamond merchants, liberal media types, and democratic politicians.

concealed carry permits are difficult to get in NYC but not impossible.

benzapp wrote: There is no reason why there should be street crime. In a free country, a well armed populace deters all such crime.

Not all, but a fair percentage.

mr. met wrote: Lott's entire argument is based on the assumption that "criminals are deterred by higher penalties," which just isn't true. the death penalty is a perfect example of this.

***********************
It could deter them for 20 yrs.

mr. met wrote: uh, what?

********************
uh what? what?

"it could deter them for 20 years."

what could?

oh, i thought you meant the death penalty.

are you saying that being in prison stops people from committing crimes? if so, i think id have to agree.

stacey wrote: wouldn't a post on a neighborhood blog - doing what neighbors do, which is gossip and inform others - be considered hearsay?

Prior inconsistent statement is an exception to the hearsay rule.

stacey wrote: I would think that the defense attorney would need a subpoena to investigate the email account and have to prove that it was in fact the victim who posted this?

what investigation? - Defense has good faith belief that she made the statement- so just asks "did you send an account of this incident to a public electronic message board?"
She says "yes" and then its "proved"

stacey wrote: Would the judge allow such a subpoena against a victim for a few minor inconsistencies especially when the other person gave up his partner?

No subpoena needed and no inconsistency would be considered minor by the defense. The giving up of the partner will only be relevant in showing the details of his confession and its voluntariness and will NOT be admissable against his partner ( each will have separate juries)

stacey wrote: And I assume that there is a discovery stage for criminal cases in which both sides have to hand over any evidence they plan on using in a trial which would limit the element of surprise?

Criminal cases have very limited "discovery" and besides if this was a prosecution witness (which the victim would have to be) the Defense counsel would have no obligation to "turn it over" prior to cross-examination.

stacey wrote: If the ADA is not aware of these statements, wouldn"t it also be up to the defense attorney to investigate these so called statements?

Again there is no investigation - it would simply be a question and once the defense counsel asked and she said yes- her prior statement would be authenticate by her "yes" answer. And I disagree that chatting on a message board is just something "neighbors do" - at least from the perspective of your "average" Brooklyn juror or judge. I beleive it would be considered quite unusual and I wouldn't be surprised if the average Brooklyn judge would permit a defense attorney to allege to the jury that simply "broadcasting" details like that undermines the credibility and raises questions regarding the motivation of the victim. And I'd be shocked if a good bit of the jurors didn't agree. (unless the ADA prepared the jury for it through voir dire and by a good direct of the victim)

Eggcream:

you're right, i never found data that disproved benzapp's claim -- because there is no such data. there is also no data proving that a well-armed populace decreases crime; so i shouldnt have to provide data to disprove that.

what i did assert, which was backed up by other posters' links, is that having a person in possession of a gun is more likely to hurt oneself or one's loved ones.

what's with the jab at the nytimes? they didnt conduct the studies. or are you of the opinion that the times is among the "elitist liberal media" outlets? and if you don't trust the nytimes, i have no idea why you would trust the FBI -- crime stats are doctored all the time.

do you have kids? would you want them sitting in a classroom where everyone was strapped? i guess this is just a matter of opinion, but i wouldnt.